Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - 11/14/14

[krkrjx]

AZlawyer, if you are still here: What if JA was the secret witness and is supposed to be crossed but absolutely refuses to take the stand even after ordered to do so by the judge?

That may be a stupid question but I have visions of this occurring.

 

[LinasK]

Slightly OT. I was watching Mystery Diners tonight and there was this server who was sabotaging her co-worker. Turns out they had gone out a couple times, but it didn't go anywhere. She knew his passcode and would go into the sales system and cancel his orders to make him look bad in front of the customers. He confronted her and she said it was because he was up for a promotion and might go and manage the owner's other restaurant. She told him she didn't want him to go so that's why she sabotaged him. He freaked and said they only hung out twice and they were drunk but never 'hooked up' and he wasn't into her at all. She got furious and threw a glass container at him right in front of the customers! One of the other servers called her a stage five clinger who became obsessed. She got fired of course, but kept blaming him for what she did and making excuses for her behaviour. Oh and she kept saying he was being 'mean' to her. Sounds familiar, huh?

p.s. Stage Five Clinger Girl found employment at another restaurant. :scared: Loverboy kept his job, but didn't get the promotion.

I saw that one! I thought it wasn't fair that he didn't get the promotion.

 

[Truth Detector]

If a mitigating circumstance is introduced in allocution, the prosecution may rebut it. If the defendant disputes his or her guilt during allocution (I think that was what happened in the Chappell case), then he/she might be subject to cross-examination. Presumably KN and JW would script JA's allocution to avoid anything that would trigger a right to cross.

Your DT credit extension exceeds mine.

I look for JA Allocution 2.0 to more closely track KN's mitigation factors intro.

And I'm hoping for the 'snapped' defense to wedge its way in.

 

[AZlawyer]

AZlawyer, if you are still here: What if JA was the secret witness and is supposed to be crossed but absolutely refuses to take the stand even after ordered to do so by the judge?

That may be a stupid question but I have visions of this occurring.

If the bailiff is literally walking her up to the witness stand, I don't think she'll fight him off and betray her comfort with physical violence.

 

[AZlawyer]

Your DT credit extension exceeds mine.

I look for JA Allocution 2.0 to more closely track KN's mitigation factors intro.

And I'm hoping for the 'snapped' defense to wedge its way in.

If she goes through the factors KN listed in allocution, she should be OK (no cross). If she tries to go for a "snapped" defense inconsistent with premeditation, she might talk herself into a cross-examination.

 

[krkrjx]

I want JM to call Chris Hughes so bad I can taste it! Since his emails were analyzed and interpreted by someone who never even met him, can he now be called or is there no rebuttal allowed on this subject?

Given this is a mitigation phase I understand the rules are different, but I am unclear on all the differences.

 

[kjt300]

Well, by then hopefully the Ct App will have clarified that the secrecy was not OK, so the closings will be able to occur in open court.

I don't fully understand. If the "secret witness" was able to testify shielded and the appeal is denied....does it mean that the witness is cross examined in open court or "in secret" per the original deal. And if it was JA, can she refuse to take the stand (in open court) because she was originally told it would be secret? Oh man, I would love to see that.

 

[Myvice]

I'm hoping JM is able to play the post conviction interview where JA is asked if she would kill again and she says only if someone makes me mad or something like that. Not sure it would be admissible but I'd love to see it.

 

[AZlawyer]

I want JM to call Chris Hughes so bad I can taste it! Since his emails were analyzed and interpreted by someone who never even met him, can he now be called or is there no rebuttal allowed on this subject?

Given this is a mitigation phase I understand the rules are different, but I am unclear on all the differences.

Sure, he could be called in rebuttal.

I don't fully understand. If the "secret witness" was able to testify shielded and the appeal is denied....does it mean that the witness is cross examined in open court or "in secret" per the original deal. And if it was JA, can she refuse to take the stand (in open court) because she was originally told it would be secret? Oh man, I would love to see that.

The witness would be cross-examined in open court. And the witness would not be able to refuse. And I'm still not convinced it was JA.

ETA: If it is a witness who was not subject to the court's jurisdiction in the first place, then the witness could refuse to continue, and the judge would have to decide if the jury could realistically be instructed to disregard the testimony. If not, a mistrial would be declared and we would start over.

 

[kjt300]

I'm hoping JM is able to play the post conviction interview where JA is asked if she would kill again and she says only if someone makes me mad or something like that. Not sure it would be admissible but I'd love to see it.

Why wouldn't that be admissible? Seems it goes right to state of mind...current state of mind..... But there is probably some wonky rule that does not allow it and that is totally wrong.

 

[kjt300]

Sure, he could be called in rebuttal.



The witness would be cross-examined in open court. And the witness would not be able to refuse. And I'm still not convinced it was JA.

Thank you very much for answering my question. I haven't said it before, but I really appreciate your legal mind and the way in which you respond so even a lay person understands. So thanks again.

 

[AZlawyer]

Why wouldn't that be admissible? Seems it goes right to state of mind...current state of mind..... But there is probably some wonky rule that does not allow it and that is totally wrong.

I think it would be admissible.

 

[NashBridges2]

I agree with other posters in the last thread. As much as I dislike JA, as horrible as the crime was, I think she would have been far better off passing on putting on a defense case.

If she had just got up, stood infront of the jury and cried, begged and apologized for killing him, admitting he was a great man, who didn't deserve to die. Admitting she loved him and he didn't love her back, and it destroyed her. Admitting that she is so sorry for what she has done, to her family, to HIS family... She would have been much better off infront of this jury.

 

[kjt300]

I agree with other posters in the last thread. As much as I dislike JA, as horrible as the crime was, I think she would have been far better off passing on putting on a defense case.

If she had just got up, stood infront of the jury and cried, begged and apologized for killing him, admitting he was a great man, who didn't deserve to die. Admitting she loved him and he didn't love her back, and it destroyed her. Admitting that she is so sorry for what she has done, to her family, to HIS family... She would have been much better off infront of this jury.

I agree with you. But I think Jodi Ann Arias would rather put the needle in her own arm than to do it.

 

[Colie]

Thought Nurmi said he would not need a secret closing?

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

Sure, he could be called in rebuttal.



The witness would be cross-examined in open court. And the witness would not be able to refuse. And I'm still not convinced it was JA.

ETA: If it is a witness who was not subject to the court's jurisdiction in the first place, then the witness could refuse to continue, and the judge would have to decide if the jury could realistically be instructed to disregard the testimony. If not, a mistrial would be declared and we would start over.

education


AZ, do you think this is the secret witness they wanted to hide because she's too close to Alyce LaViolette and Robert Geffner?

She doesn't list any other than the Professsional School of Psychological Studies, and that gets her close to Geffner ,and Geffner is called Bob by LaViolette.

 

[NashBridges2]

And another thought before bed, after the childhood he had, if all they can find is a few emails from 2 friends and 1ex girlfriend who said he was a flirt and treated girls bad and had sex with 2 women, then I'd say he was a pretty good man. I am raising a teenage boy. If at 30, this is the worst he's done, I'd be a pretty proud mom.

 

[krkrjx]

I agree with other posters in the last thread. As much as I dislike JA, as horrible as the crime was, I think she would have been far better off passing on putting on a defense case.

If she had just got up, stood infront of the jury and cried, begged and apologized for killing him, admitting he was a great man, who didn't deserve to die. Admitting she loved him and he didn't love her back, and it destroyed her. Admitting that she is so sorry for what she has done, to her family, to HIS family... She would have been much better off infront of this jury.

How unfortunate for her DT that she is incapable of doing this. I expected her, in this penalty phase, to at least fake an act of contrition, and maybe that will come yet. I just do not think she can pull it off as believable because it would go so far against her grain to be contrite. IMO it would have been the best way to go for her but things have gone too far for that to happen now. Not convincingly anyway.

 

[Colie]

Interesting. Kn or JW would script it. We know the first time it was all Jodi.

 

[AZlawyer]

education


AZ, do you think this is the secret witness they wanted to hide because she's too close to Alyce LaViolette and Robert Geffner?

She doesn't list any other than the Professsional School of Psychological Studies, and that gets her close to Geffner ,and Geffner is called Bob by LaViolette.

No, I don't think it was her. Mostly because I think JSS would have been more easily led down the wrong path toward secrecy if the witness were an innocent third party (not the defendant and not an expert).